Some of my friends were able to get there hands on PDFs of the 4th edition D&D rulebooks. I was excited to get a chance to play it, if only because the product has not yet been officially released yet.
As the topic description states 4th ed. is awful. It can be summed up in a series of three points:
1) Everyone is a variant of the 3rd edition Warlock.
2) There is no fluff anymore.
3) It is WoW.
I blame Keith Baker, one of the chief designers and the creater of the terrible Eberon campaign setting. Everything he comes up with is stupid and 4th ed is no exception. My question is why WOTC put the designer of a campaign setting that has not been selling well in charge of creating their new rules set?
Full Version: I got a chance to play D&D 4th edition today
Because that is what WOTC does. They have never really moved beyond the CCG business mindset - that is to say, more revisions make for a better product. Honestly, I was surprised that it took them this long to self destruct.
Anyone know if there is any truth to the rumor I heard about Hasbro looking to sell of WOTC and all their assets due to poor performance? (Poor performance should - in this case - be measured against Hasbro's bottom line, not the RPG industry.)
Anyone know if there is any truth to the rumor I heard about Hasbro looking to sell of WOTC and all their assets due to poor performance? (Poor performance should - in this case - be measured against Hasbro's bottom line, not the RPG industry.)
I just rolled up a wizard for the game I'll be playing in, and I concur with the CCG thing. The encounter and daily powers kinda have the same feel as a hand of cards you play and then discard.
I've looked at all the PDFs, and I agree about the Warlock = all classes thing. Oh, and the part where the entire game is crap. I liked Eberron a lot, but that's his only work that I enjoyed even a little.
Cards are a perfect analogy.
Oh, and my wizard casting 2d4 Magic Missile as much as s/he wants ALL DAY LONG? At first level? I don't think so, Keith Baker. Good job, you've designed the Windows Vista of D&D (I'd say Windows ME, but that was 3.0).
Cards are a perfect analogy.
Oh, and my wizard casting 2d4 Magic Missile as much as s/he wants ALL DAY LONG? At first level? I don't think so, Keith Baker. Good job, you've designed the Windows Vista of D&D (I'd say Windows ME, but that was 3.0).
I'm going to be picking up the core books today (though I've had PDF's for a little more than a week now) and I'm going to go against the grain here and say I'm fairly impressed. I can see why it isn't everyones cup of tea but, keeping in mind I haven't actually played yet I think I'll enjoy it.
No one is ever useless (at least in combat). We all know how it was in 3.X. Go off into the dungeon (this was 3E's rallying cry), fight some monsters. After 3 or 4 encounters the party was drained... At least the spellcasters were. Then the group would turn around, leave the dungeon and rest after having been awake for 4 hours. If a DM started forcing the PC's into situations where they couldn't rest then the spellcasters became pretty useless.
Of course on the flip side, the only class that had real staying power in the 3.X core books (I don't think it's fair to count splats) was the fighter and they got boring as hell to play after the first couple levels.
In 4E every class will always have something to bring to the table, even if it's their 5th encounter of the day, they've all burnt their daily powers, they're at half hitpoints and they're otherwise roughed up. I guess this is what people complain about when they say it's turning into an MMO. I wouldn't know. I played the free trial of Anarchy Online... that the extent of my MMO experience.
I expect they will be coming out with power cards pretty quick here. I for one welcome them. I've always used cards as gaming aids, I use those handy Hacker Cards that were available from... well someones site on here. I used to collect those TSR trading cards that had the magic weapons and NPC's on them, I stat up monsters on index cards, all sorts of stuff like that.
Vancian magic has always iritated me in D&D. Unfortunatly most of the solutions have been even worse (check out the Black Company magic system for an example). By giving each class its own set of powers to choose from it will avoid situations like this.
Wizard: "I cast Evisards Black Tenticals and annihilate the orc warriors."
DM: *rolls reflex save* "All but one are dead. Fighter, you're up."
Figher: "I hit him."
No one is ever useless (at least in combat). We all know how it was in 3.X. Go off into the dungeon (this was 3E's rallying cry), fight some monsters. After 3 or 4 encounters the party was drained... At least the spellcasters were. Then the group would turn around, leave the dungeon and rest after having been awake for 4 hours. If a DM started forcing the PC's into situations where they couldn't rest then the spellcasters became pretty useless.
Of course on the flip side, the only class that had real staying power in the 3.X core books (I don't think it's fair to count splats) was the fighter and they got boring as hell to play after the first couple levels.
In 4E every class will always have something to bring to the table, even if it's their 5th encounter of the day, they've all burnt their daily powers, they're at half hitpoints and they're otherwise roughed up. I guess this is what people complain about when they say it's turning into an MMO. I wouldn't know. I played the free trial of Anarchy Online... that the extent of my MMO experience.
I expect they will be coming out with power cards pretty quick here. I for one welcome them. I've always used cards as gaming aids, I use those handy Hacker Cards that were available from... well someones site on here. I used to collect those TSR trading cards that had the magic weapons and NPC's on them, I stat up monsters on index cards, all sorts of stuff like that.
Vancian magic has always iritated me in D&D. Unfortunatly most of the solutions have been even worse (check out the Black Company magic system for an example). By giving each class its own set of powers to choose from it will avoid situations like this.
Wizard: "I cast Evisards Black Tenticals and annihilate the orc warriors."
DM: *rolls reflex save* "All but one are dead. Fighter, you're up."
Figher: "I hit him."
My group got our hands on the PDFs a week ago and we've rolled up characters and run a trial encounter. It wasn't bad. Different, sure, but not completely in a bad way. It's playable and fun while playing. To those complaining about fluff: come on. D&D has always been notorious for bad fluff. This isn't any different. The idea of powers in general is silly but it works well enough and the game really feels balanced quite well.
As for complaints, my biggest complaints are that wizards are much less fun to make. All wizards seem to be the same anymore. In fact, that's my complaint with all of the classes: they all seem too similar and it gives the feel of less variety. Character creation isn't very fun anymore either; I for one loved skill points because of the flexibility it gave the character (though I do like some of the changes like combining Hide and Move Silently into Stealth or whatever). My two favorite core classes are right out, as well: bard and monk.
On the whole, I enjoy the 4e experience.
As for complaints, my biggest complaints are that wizards are much less fun to make. All wizards seem to be the same anymore. In fact, that's my complaint with all of the classes: they all seem too similar and it gives the feel of less variety. Character creation isn't very fun anymore either; I for one loved skill points because of the flexibility it gave the character (though I do like some of the changes like combining Hide and Move Silently into Stealth or whatever). My two favorite core classes are right out, as well: bard and monk.
On the whole, I enjoy the 4e experience.
I don't think the idea of cards as a game aid is a bad thing (obviously). However, when the game mechanics could be replaced by cards, or indeed are for all intents and purposes cards, then characters become a hand of cards and not people with skills. I'm withholding judgment until I actually play the game, but if I really wanted to play a CCG RPG, I'd have bought RuinsWorld.
QUOTE (bishop186 @ Jun 6 2008, 09:42 AM) 
As for complaints, my biggest complaints are that wizards are much less fun to make. All wizards seem to be the same anymore. In fact, that's my complaint with all of the classes: they all seem too similar and it gives the feel of less variety. Character creation isn't very fun anymore either; I for one loved skill points because of the flexibility it gave the character (though I do like some of the changes like combining Hide and Move Silently into Stealth or whatever). My two favorite core classes are right out, as well: bard and monk.
I'm hoping that as more books start rolling out this will change. Compare a fighter created using the 3.0 PHB alone to one created with a library of 3.5 books.
Monk and Bard will likely be reappearing in future books too. Just like the Druid. I think it was a nice trade off for some of the new races/classes. I'm developing a campaign setting around Dragonborn personally.
Right now my biggest disappointment is the horrible crap they've been putting out for D&D insider. It's the release day of the books, the biggest day in D&D history since the release of 3rd edition and D&D insider says:
QUOTE
Welcome to the latest version of the D&D website! Truth be told, you might not notice that much of a difference from yesterday’s version of the site
As a matter of fact I was hoping to see something different from yesterdays website. They want me to pay 15 bucks a month and they can't even put up more than a splash screen? Nevermind the fact that their 'issues' of Dungeon and Dragon magazine feel like something coming out of a 12th grade computer course.
Nisarg/RPGPundit always has fun things to say about 4e:
I saved my favorite one, with my favorite part bolded, for last.
That last blog entry cracks me up every time, because frankly speaking it's true and has been true for a while. Me, I'm always happy just playing "a fighter", or "a cleric", or even "an elf" which automatically means I have a sword but also spells. But I look around and I get the feeling that everyone is running around with their fighter/mage/cleric/masseuse/C programmer/butler Tiefling.
QUOTE
Let's just say that pretty much every internet geek on earth who wants to has got it already.
Its early and I'm still processing, but on the whole I think that its not too early to say "I told you so" about a few things:
1. No Rule 0. Yes, GMs can create house rules, but it does not appear that they can make rulings on the spot. In fact, in the section on how to deal with Rules Lawyers, one of the things that is most notable is that it DOESN'T tell you that you can just tell him to shut up or fuck off, or that you as GM overrule his knowledge of the rules. No, apparently you're supposed to apologize if you've made an error, or you're allowed to put off discussion till the end of the session, and the rules lawyer is allowed to take all the time he wants to look up the rule while his character exists in a limbo (and cannot be harmed by the monsters or anything else).
2. No treasure tables or random tables for magic items. Apparently the only random tables in the entire DMG are the random tables for generating dungeon maps and two d20-tables for NPC personalities.
3. The Encounter system seems to be set up as more than just "guidelines" or something just for beginners. Unless you essentially create a new, substitute encounter system; its such an essential structure of "how D&D works" in this edition, that you really can't just have the PCs wandering around encountering monsters at your own whim.
I'm sure there's lots of other stuff to talk about 4e, good and bad, and it'll come in time. But for starters, I just wanted to get my first I Told You So in there.
One should note, on the overall impression of this edition, that its a telling fact that when the gang of fuckers over at Storygames are all pissing their pants with joy at this new D&D, and people on regular RPG sites are upset about it. The designers of 4e have made no effort to hide what their real inspiration for this new edition was.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Savinelli Autograph + Hearth & Home's Mt.Marcy
Its early and I'm still processing, but on the whole I think that its not too early to say "I told you so" about a few things:
1. No Rule 0. Yes, GMs can create house rules, but it does not appear that they can make rulings on the spot. In fact, in the section on how to deal with Rules Lawyers, one of the things that is most notable is that it DOESN'T tell you that you can just tell him to shut up or fuck off, or that you as GM overrule his knowledge of the rules. No, apparently you're supposed to apologize if you've made an error, or you're allowed to put off discussion till the end of the session, and the rules lawyer is allowed to take all the time he wants to look up the rule while his character exists in a limbo (and cannot be harmed by the monsters or anything else).
2. No treasure tables or random tables for magic items. Apparently the only random tables in the entire DMG are the random tables for generating dungeon maps and two d20-tables for NPC personalities.
3. The Encounter system seems to be set up as more than just "guidelines" or something just for beginners. Unless you essentially create a new, substitute encounter system; its such an essential structure of "how D&D works" in this edition, that you really can't just have the PCs wandering around encountering monsters at your own whim.
I'm sure there's lots of other stuff to talk about 4e, good and bad, and it'll come in time. But for starters, I just wanted to get my first I Told You So in there.
One should note, on the overall impression of this edition, that its a telling fact that when the gang of fuckers over at Storygames are all pissing their pants with joy at this new D&D, and people on regular RPG sites are upset about it. The designers of 4e have made no effort to hide what their real inspiration for this new edition was.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Savinelli Autograph + Hearth & Home's Mt.Marcy
QUOTE
So, over on theRPGsite, there's a brand new thread where we see what for me is the best-written actual play I've seen of one of the 4e demos.
The highlites:
1. It confirms what was one of my primary concerns: power creep. 1st level characters each start with what the poster describes as about 8 "superpowers". Apparently, in the demo none of the player characters ever bothered to make a regular attack, not even once. Why bother, when their "at will" powers were always better? When something called "Mighty Cleaving" or "Lance of Faith" are first level at-will abilities, you kind of know the game is going to be a powergaming monstrosity.
2. The game certainly does seem to encourage "team" tactics; from the description it seems that players depended on one another immensely. But again, from the description it sounded like certain players (including the writer of the thread) spent most of their time doing some kind of "aid" role to the other players. This isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't entirely resolve the supposed problem of "someone has to bite the bullet and play the cleric".
3. The game will apparently be impossible to play without some kind of miniatures. Everything depends on positioning, on "squares", and if you're one of those gaming groups that doesn't like using a battlemat and squares and minis, then you're shit out of luck. But hey, we all knew that one was coming.
So to be fair, let's look at the ultimate good and bad from that post:
The ultimate good: "Overall, I enjoyed myself quite a bit"
The ultimate bad: "I did feel that the system took me out of character somewhat. I felt I was moving a piece in a minis game and not playing a character in a fight for his life."
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Lorenzetti Solitario Rhodesian + Burlington's Lapis
The highlites:
1. It confirms what was one of my primary concerns: power creep. 1st level characters each start with what the poster describes as about 8 "superpowers". Apparently, in the demo none of the player characters ever bothered to make a regular attack, not even once. Why bother, when their "at will" powers were always better? When something called "Mighty Cleaving" or "Lance of Faith" are first level at-will abilities, you kind of know the game is going to be a powergaming monstrosity.
2. The game certainly does seem to encourage "team" tactics; from the description it seems that players depended on one another immensely. But again, from the description it sounded like certain players (including the writer of the thread) spent most of their time doing some kind of "aid" role to the other players. This isn't necessarily bad, but it doesn't entirely resolve the supposed problem of "someone has to bite the bullet and play the cleric".
3. The game will apparently be impossible to play without some kind of miniatures. Everything depends on positioning, on "squares", and if you're one of those gaming groups that doesn't like using a battlemat and squares and minis, then you're shit out of luck. But hey, we all knew that one was coming.
So to be fair, let's look at the ultimate good and bad from that post:
The ultimate good: "Overall, I enjoyed myself quite a bit"
The ultimate bad: "I did feel that the system took me out of character somewhat. I felt I was moving a piece in a minis game and not playing a character in a fight for his life."
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Lorenzetti Solitario Rhodesian + Burlington's Lapis
QUOTE
4e: The Harrison Bergeron School of RPG Design
or Here Starts the Rebellion
For those of you who are unfamiliar, in other words, you were spared having to read it in junior high school english class, Harrison Bergeron is a science-fiction short story about a society where everyone is "equal". This equality has been achieved by taking great dancers and hobbling them with heavy weights so they won't be better than anyone else; taking people with high intelligence and implanting little shock-devices in their skulls so that they won't be able to think better than anyone else, etc etc.
In other words, it was the equality of the mediocre: anyone who was talented or skilled in any way was artificially restrained, to prevent them from being able to be better than the rest of the world.
4e design has reminded me of that short story, that I hadn't thought about in decades.
It is meant to hobble players who are good at roleplaying. "Give XP for Roleplaying? Why would we ever do that, it would just encourage the good roleplayers and make the bad ones feel bad!"
Instead, let's create a mechanics system that encourages everyone to pursue the utter mediocrity of "character build"; that any pathetic little obsessive can come to master by incessant hours of reading the books and figuring out all the tricks (utterly unrelated to emulation or immersion) by which you can manipulate the rules, bending them like pretzels, in order to get the "perfect" character.
And of course, its meant to hobble GMs more than anyone. Why should we have to count on having good GMs for a good experience? Sure, if we create a set of restrictive rules that railroad GMs into having to follow a kind of "campaign development Plan", where the designers TELL the GM what type of monsters he's ALLOWED to use, what type of treasure he MUST give them, what he's allowed to throw at them and what he most certainly isn't, regardless of the setting or the campaign or the particular tastes of the player that the GM knows well and the Game Designers don't fucking know at all, it means that we'll never end up with truly great GMs. The great GMs wouldn't be able to be great with 4e; not without changing so many rules that it will essentially be a different game. Most of them won't bother, they'll go off and play other things altogether.
But its a small price to pay! Because it means that bad GMs might just be almost mediocre. And mediocre GMs... well, they'll get to absolutely shine in their mediocrity! And without any of those truly good or great GMs to steal their spotlight!
After all, we can't have people just making of the game whatever they want to make of it, the way they used to in every other edition of the game! What would be the point of that??
No! We must create balance! We must create equality! Everyone must have the same mediocre experience! So that you will all bow under the Game Designer's genius! You will obey us! Unlimited rice pudding! Exterminate! Exterminate!
You gang of motherfucking fascists.
The goal was very clearly (and haplessly) expressed by Storygames Swine TonyLB on theRPGsite recently: The plan is that the game will drive away the good GMs, and bring in a new generation of young GMs that will be trained from the start to accept being neutered by the Game Designers, so they will never develop the "bad habits" of believing that they can overrule the players or the rules or, especially, so that they won't ever think that they can take an RPG and make it their own. These youngsters will, theoretically, be trained from the start to understand that RPGs are whatever the Game Designer wants them to be, and must stick to their system as written.
I guess the theory is that if D&D is made into the "gamist game" that the GNS Forge crowd always claimed it was, and people can be trained to enjoy it, then they will open up to buying other Forge-based games, and the sales of said games might actually beat the double-digits.
The real problem with this, the best laid plans of mice and men and the mediocrity-pushing fascists out there, is that I don't see anyone just bending over and enjoying it. The kids won't. Why the fuck would they? What self-respecting 14 year old will take up the job of being a GM when its like being the banker in Monopoly with the added unfun of not actually getting to be a player too (at least in monopoly, the banker actually gets to play)?
No. The 14 year old will rebel, and will demand the authority of a GM. This will only create strife in gaming groups, especially gaming groups of young players.
Hopefully, there will also be enough of the old crowd around to infect all those young minds with random charts and tables, with ideas about GMs being able to run games with authority, and to create worlds that make sense as worlds, not just as backdrops for a game where only system and game balance matter.
In the end, D&D 4e as written will suck ass to just about everybody apart from the character-build-obsessives, the Game Designers themselves, and the Swine who despise D&D (and of course, the latter won't actually play D&D, they'll just be very pleased that D&D is finally like they always tried to pretend it was). But when a game of this magnitude sucks, people will end up taking it and making it into something that is their own: with house rules, and underground rules, and unlicensed products, and rebel movements of all kinds. People will find ways to play it in a way totally different than the fascist Game Designers intended; they will make it theirs.
And in time, the corporate overlords who govern over the fascist Game Designers will be forced to change the game to fit what people actually want, and throw these asshole game designers out on their asses. Because they'll realize, sooner or later (I'm betting on relatively sooner) that they're not making the money they could be making on the game, and its the Game Designer's fault (theirs, and the Swine ideologies which pushed them to it). God bless capitalism.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Ashton Old Church Rhodesian + Ashton III
or Here Starts the Rebellion
For those of you who are unfamiliar, in other words, you were spared having to read it in junior high school english class, Harrison Bergeron is a science-fiction short story about a society where everyone is "equal". This equality has been achieved by taking great dancers and hobbling them with heavy weights so they won't be better than anyone else; taking people with high intelligence and implanting little shock-devices in their skulls so that they won't be able to think better than anyone else, etc etc.
In other words, it was the equality of the mediocre: anyone who was talented or skilled in any way was artificially restrained, to prevent them from being able to be better than the rest of the world.
4e design has reminded me of that short story, that I hadn't thought about in decades.
It is meant to hobble players who are good at roleplaying. "Give XP for Roleplaying? Why would we ever do that, it would just encourage the good roleplayers and make the bad ones feel bad!"
Instead, let's create a mechanics system that encourages everyone to pursue the utter mediocrity of "character build"; that any pathetic little obsessive can come to master by incessant hours of reading the books and figuring out all the tricks (utterly unrelated to emulation or immersion) by which you can manipulate the rules, bending them like pretzels, in order to get the "perfect" character.
And of course, its meant to hobble GMs more than anyone. Why should we have to count on having good GMs for a good experience? Sure, if we create a set of restrictive rules that railroad GMs into having to follow a kind of "campaign development Plan", where the designers TELL the GM what type of monsters he's ALLOWED to use, what type of treasure he MUST give them, what he's allowed to throw at them and what he most certainly isn't, regardless of the setting or the campaign or the particular tastes of the player that the GM knows well and the Game Designers don't fucking know at all, it means that we'll never end up with truly great GMs. The great GMs wouldn't be able to be great with 4e; not without changing so many rules that it will essentially be a different game. Most of them won't bother, they'll go off and play other things altogether.
But its a small price to pay! Because it means that bad GMs might just be almost mediocre. And mediocre GMs... well, they'll get to absolutely shine in their mediocrity! And without any of those truly good or great GMs to steal their spotlight!
After all, we can't have people just making of the game whatever they want to make of it, the way they used to in every other edition of the game! What would be the point of that??
No! We must create balance! We must create equality! Everyone must have the same mediocre experience! So that you will all bow under the Game Designer's genius! You will obey us! Unlimited rice pudding! Exterminate! Exterminate!
You gang of motherfucking fascists.
The goal was very clearly (and haplessly) expressed by Storygames Swine TonyLB on theRPGsite recently: The plan is that the game will drive away the good GMs, and bring in a new generation of young GMs that will be trained from the start to accept being neutered by the Game Designers, so they will never develop the "bad habits" of believing that they can overrule the players or the rules or, especially, so that they won't ever think that they can take an RPG and make it their own. These youngsters will, theoretically, be trained from the start to understand that RPGs are whatever the Game Designer wants them to be, and must stick to their system as written.
I guess the theory is that if D&D is made into the "gamist game" that the GNS Forge crowd always claimed it was, and people can be trained to enjoy it, then they will open up to buying other Forge-based games, and the sales of said games might actually beat the double-digits.
The real problem with this, the best laid plans of mice and men and the mediocrity-pushing fascists out there, is that I don't see anyone just bending over and enjoying it. The kids won't. Why the fuck would they? What self-respecting 14 year old will take up the job of being a GM when its like being the banker in Monopoly with the added unfun of not actually getting to be a player too (at least in monopoly, the banker actually gets to play)?
No. The 14 year old will rebel, and will demand the authority of a GM. This will only create strife in gaming groups, especially gaming groups of young players.
Hopefully, there will also be enough of the old crowd around to infect all those young minds with random charts and tables, with ideas about GMs being able to run games with authority, and to create worlds that make sense as worlds, not just as backdrops for a game where only system and game balance matter.
In the end, D&D 4e as written will suck ass to just about everybody apart from the character-build-obsessives, the Game Designers themselves, and the Swine who despise D&D (and of course, the latter won't actually play D&D, they'll just be very pleased that D&D is finally like they always tried to pretend it was). But when a game of this magnitude sucks, people will end up taking it and making it into something that is their own: with house rules, and underground rules, and unlicensed products, and rebel movements of all kinds. People will find ways to play it in a way totally different than the fascist Game Designers intended; they will make it theirs.
And in time, the corporate overlords who govern over the fascist Game Designers will be forced to change the game to fit what people actually want, and throw these asshole game designers out on their asses. Because they'll realize, sooner or later (I'm betting on relatively sooner) that they're not making the money they could be making on the game, and its the Game Designer's fault (theirs, and the Swine ideologies which pushed them to it). God bless capitalism.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Ashton Old Church Rhodesian + Ashton III
QUOTE
4e: Making D&D Safe for Apsergers-Retards
or "Does Rolling for Random Gem Type Ruin "THE PLAN""?
I think it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that 4e is not working out for me as far as the previews are concerned. At this point I can probably safely say that unless they've been misleading us at every turn and the game is utterly different than they led on, there's practically no chance I'll enjoy the game.
But beyond that, I think that in many areas there's no question they are making MISTAKES with the rules. They're making choices that appeal to the nerds, the hardcore power-builders, and the GNS-types that want to imagine D&D is a "Gamist" game. And no where is this more evident to me than in the near-total apparent absence of random tables.
I'm the type of gamer that loves random tables. The more that you find in a game, the better the chance that game will be liked. Random results create an upredictability that lead to good emulation, when guided by the GM's judgment calls. My own upcoming FtA!GN! book is going to be chalk-full of random tables.
Random tables were a hallmark of every previous D&D edition. Even 3e, which did move away from randomization, had random tables pretty well all over the place. The position in 3.x appeared to be that the authors preferred that people used fixed values for things, so that their precious CR and "balance" weren't disrupted, but the tables were there for those who chose it. In 4e, on the other hand, it seems that all such choice has been lost in the Authors' zeal to believe that THEIR WAY is the "right" way, and their way should be imposed on the players.
In 4e, any and all randomization is seen as The Enemy. You don't even have random rolls for hit points. Are there even random rolls for attributes anymore? Is anything random?! Or can nothing be permitted to interfere with the precious "Game Balance"?
Look at what they've done now with treasure. Before, rolling random treasure results was one of the most entertaining elements of the D&D game; at least in my opinion. I'm sure that there were people who may never have used random tables. But I'm willing to bet they were far less than those who did.
Now, that too has to be scrapped: treasure must be assigned in neat little pre-determined "parcels" that will always be basically the same, because to alter them would alter "GAME BALANCE". It doesn't matter what you're fighting, you'll get what treasure you're meant to get anyways, because that's what the carefully tuned March Into Progress that is the new D&D game demands: it has planned everything out for you ahead of time. There can be no surprises to deviate from The Plan.
I mean shit, I don't get why they don't just get rid of dice rolls altogether? They're far too unpredictable. They might result in something that does not fit with the concept of Game Balance, like a PC dying or something. That must be avoided because then you wouldn't get the parcel of 550 gp, or two 250 gp art objects + 50 gp, or one 500 gp gem + 50 gp that you need to get in order to march lock-step into level 6.
And you know, until now people have been saying: "you know, all these Encounters and Skill Encounters and other sorts of things, they're set up for the beginner, you won't be FORCED to use them, you can just ignore them". Some of my pro-4e friends have been trying to claim that at every turn. Only, sorry, as of now I don't see that. Because for example, to do that with treasure would require that there be an alternative. And as far as I know, there isn't. You're going to get those "treasure parcel" tables in the DMG, but you aren't going to also get random treasure tables, are you?
So you're pretty much limited to either doing things their way, or just winging it altogether.
No random treasure tables, no random monster tables, no random dungeon tables, no random traps, no random hit dice, no random spells, no random anything.
Like Jrients said in response to this: "Just reading the description of it feels like a collar round my neck, stifling my breathing."
This isn't D&D. Its risk-less, surprise-less, utterly pre-fab busywork that sucks all the life and marrow out of the idea of adventure. And that's why its a Mistake. Apart from some nerds who are bored of it, and D&D-haters who never liked it, random tables are a feature, not a bug. They're something that makes the game more exciting for all concerned. Get rid of randomness, and you get a game that becomes predictable; and thus less playable to all but those few aspergers-retards who start to scream uncontrollably when they are confronted with something they can't predict, and just want a pseudo-game where everything is mapped out for you from the moment you start.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Stanwell Pipe of the Year + Esoterica's Penzance
or "Does Rolling for Random Gem Type Ruin "THE PLAN""?
I think it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that 4e is not working out for me as far as the previews are concerned. At this point I can probably safely say that unless they've been misleading us at every turn and the game is utterly different than they led on, there's practically no chance I'll enjoy the game.
But beyond that, I think that in many areas there's no question they are making MISTAKES with the rules. They're making choices that appeal to the nerds, the hardcore power-builders, and the GNS-types that want to imagine D&D is a "Gamist" game. And no where is this more evident to me than in the near-total apparent absence of random tables.
I'm the type of gamer that loves random tables. The more that you find in a game, the better the chance that game will be liked. Random results create an upredictability that lead to good emulation, when guided by the GM's judgment calls. My own upcoming FtA!GN! book is going to be chalk-full of random tables.
Random tables were a hallmark of every previous D&D edition. Even 3e, which did move away from randomization, had random tables pretty well all over the place. The position in 3.x appeared to be that the authors preferred that people used fixed values for things, so that their precious CR and "balance" weren't disrupted, but the tables were there for those who chose it. In 4e, on the other hand, it seems that all such choice has been lost in the Authors' zeal to believe that THEIR WAY is the "right" way, and their way should be imposed on the players.
In 4e, any and all randomization is seen as The Enemy. You don't even have random rolls for hit points. Are there even random rolls for attributes anymore? Is anything random?! Or can nothing be permitted to interfere with the precious "Game Balance"?
Look at what they've done now with treasure. Before, rolling random treasure results was one of the most entertaining elements of the D&D game; at least in my opinion. I'm sure that there were people who may never have used random tables. But I'm willing to bet they were far less than those who did.
Now, that too has to be scrapped: treasure must be assigned in neat little pre-determined "parcels" that will always be basically the same, because to alter them would alter "GAME BALANCE". It doesn't matter what you're fighting, you'll get what treasure you're meant to get anyways, because that's what the carefully tuned March Into Progress that is the new D&D game demands: it has planned everything out for you ahead of time. There can be no surprises to deviate from The Plan.
I mean shit, I don't get why they don't just get rid of dice rolls altogether? They're far too unpredictable. They might result in something that does not fit with the concept of Game Balance, like a PC dying or something. That must be avoided because then you wouldn't get the parcel of 550 gp, or two 250 gp art objects + 50 gp, or one 500 gp gem + 50 gp that you need to get in order to march lock-step into level 6.
And you know, until now people have been saying: "you know, all these Encounters and Skill Encounters and other sorts of things, they're set up for the beginner, you won't be FORCED to use them, you can just ignore them". Some of my pro-4e friends have been trying to claim that at every turn. Only, sorry, as of now I don't see that. Because for example, to do that with treasure would require that there be an alternative. And as far as I know, there isn't. You're going to get those "treasure parcel" tables in the DMG, but you aren't going to also get random treasure tables, are you?
So you're pretty much limited to either doing things their way, or just winging it altogether.
No random treasure tables, no random monster tables, no random dungeon tables, no random traps, no random hit dice, no random spells, no random anything.
Like Jrients said in response to this: "Just reading the description of it feels like a collar round my neck, stifling my breathing."
This isn't D&D. Its risk-less, surprise-less, utterly pre-fab busywork that sucks all the life and marrow out of the idea of adventure. And that's why its a Mistake. Apart from some nerds who are bored of it, and D&D-haters who never liked it, random tables are a feature, not a bug. They're something that makes the game more exciting for all concerned. Get rid of randomness, and you get a game that becomes predictable; and thus less playable to all but those few aspergers-retards who start to scream uncontrollably when they are confronted with something they can't predict, and just want a pseudo-game where everything is mapped out for you from the moment you start.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Stanwell Pipe of the Year + Esoterica's Penzance
I saved my favorite one, with my favorite part bolded, for last.
QUOTE
How the D&D "hip" Aesthetic is Missing the Boat
With 3e, between the system and the overall artistic style inferred by the book's art, it made it very hard to imagine that traditional fantasy "look", the LoTR or even the 1e/2e Forgotten Realms look.
Its like, you can't really imagine with 3e a bar scene where you have a ranger in rusty chain mail, his scimitar leaning by his chair, smoking a clay churchwarden pipe sitting across from a gandalf-esque long-bearded wizard, getting ready to go on expedition to the orcish mines.
You'd have trouble imagining that because the "ranger" would in fact be a Ranger2/Thief3/Fighter3/Prestige Master3/Pipedude 2/Acrobat1/circus clown1/sportsman1; and the Wizard would actually be a Wizard4/sorceror3/thief1/barbarian1/shadow dancer3/Jedi2/pharmacist1.
You'd have trouble imagining it because the Ranger wouldn't be in rusty chain mail, he'd be in some kind of gold-green coloured spiky bulby armour and have a giant flametongue +4 runesword with Dragonmarks ™. And of course he wouldn't be smoking a pipe, that's politically incorrect.
You'd have trouble imagining it because the Wizard would in fact be a short half-tiefling chick in a revealing leather bikini (along with a bunch of buckles and straps in places where they're not really needed for anything) covered in tattoos with purple eyes and spiky green hair.
And of course, they wouldn't be going to the Orcish mines; they'd be going to the Dire Gargantuan Orcs who have the half-draconic AND the half-celestial AND the half-infernal templates (that's right, that's 200% of orcs per orc: each orc is one-quarter dragon, one-quarter angel, one-quarter demon and one-quarter orc).
And they probably wouldn't be in mines either, they'd be in motherfucking Mario's Palace.
Does anyone really believe that 4e will be any better at capturing the more classic fantasy feel?
Is it not the height of retarded that, given the massive success of traditional fantasy in recent years (LoTR, the upcoming hobbit movie, narnia, all the blockbuster fantasy movies, not ONE of which has featured dungeonpunk or WoW-esque styles), the people at Wizards would be doing everything they possibly can to try to make D&D as un-mainstream-fantasy as possible?
I mean shit, its like these guys are a bunch of 30something idiots who're utterly clueless about current trends and actually feel embarrassed about D&D's traditional look, and are trying everything they can (ending up in predictable utter overkill) to try to make D&D "hip" for "the kids", without having a fucking clue that what the kids are hip to these days IS traditional fantasy.
RPGPundit
With 3e, between the system and the overall artistic style inferred by the book's art, it made it very hard to imagine that traditional fantasy "look", the LoTR or even the 1e/2e Forgotten Realms look.
Its like, you can't really imagine with 3e a bar scene where you have a ranger in rusty chain mail, his scimitar leaning by his chair, smoking a clay churchwarden pipe sitting across from a gandalf-esque long-bearded wizard, getting ready to go on expedition to the orcish mines.
You'd have trouble imagining that because the "ranger" would in fact be a Ranger2/Thief3/Fighter3/Prestige Master3/Pipedude 2/Acrobat1/circus clown1/sportsman1; and the Wizard would actually be a Wizard4/sorceror3/thief1/barbarian1/shadow dancer3/Jedi2/pharmacist1.
You'd have trouble imagining it because the Ranger wouldn't be in rusty chain mail, he'd be in some kind of gold-green coloured spiky bulby armour and have a giant flametongue +4 runesword with Dragonmarks ™. And of course he wouldn't be smoking a pipe, that's politically incorrect.
You'd have trouble imagining it because the Wizard would in fact be a short half-tiefling chick in a revealing leather bikini (along with a bunch of buckles and straps in places where they're not really needed for anything) covered in tattoos with purple eyes and spiky green hair.
And of course, they wouldn't be going to the Orcish mines; they'd be going to the Dire Gargantuan Orcs who have the half-draconic AND the half-celestial AND the half-infernal templates (that's right, that's 200% of orcs per orc: each orc is one-quarter dragon, one-quarter angel, one-quarter demon and one-quarter orc).
And they probably wouldn't be in mines either, they'd be in motherfucking Mario's Palace.
Does anyone really believe that 4e will be any better at capturing the more classic fantasy feel?
Is it not the height of retarded that, given the massive success of traditional fantasy in recent years (LoTR, the upcoming hobbit movie, narnia, all the blockbuster fantasy movies, not ONE of which has featured dungeonpunk or WoW-esque styles), the people at Wizards would be doing everything they possibly can to try to make D&D as un-mainstream-fantasy as possible?
I mean shit, its like these guys are a bunch of 30something idiots who're utterly clueless about current trends and actually feel embarrassed about D&D's traditional look, and are trying everything they can (ending up in predictable utter overkill) to try to make D&D "hip" for "the kids", without having a fucking clue that what the kids are hip to these days IS traditional fantasy.
RPGPundit
That last blog entry cracks me up every time, because frankly speaking it's true and has been true for a while. Me, I'm always happy just playing "a fighter", or "a cleric", or even "an elf" which automatically means I have a sword but also spells. But I look around and I get the feeling that everyone is running around with their fighter/mage/cleric/masseuse/C programmer/butler Tiefling.
Hehe, yes, true, it's always funny to read about nerd-rage on the Internet. Ah, those good old comic-book-shop guys who always yell that something new is the worst thing ever... 
Without them, we wouldn't know what is the newest most terrible thing, and we would have to make our own opinion.
Thank you, Simpsons, for providing us with memorable stereotypes who are even true.
Without them, we wouldn't know what is the newest most terrible thing, and we would have to make our own opinion.
Thank you, Simpsons, for providing us with memorable stereotypes who are even true.
I'm actually a fan of the multi-classing.. If only because it allowed me to get a character that was more unique and had the abilities and combinations to make what I wanted. (It's also why I like shadowrun, which doesn't have classes.. or levels.) But as far as I can tell 4e got rid of this, and we'll just have to rely on it providing enough distinction for Sword Fighter not to be exactly like Axe Fighter, with the only difference being weapons. Everything seems pretty much cookie cutter, thats why I ended up with all the additional class books so that I had the prestige classes, and starting classes to do what I wanted. Only character I've done that didn't multi-class (horribly) was a Knight (PHB2), but he still had one level of Purple Dragon Knight (Complete Warrior I think).
I haven't had a chance to actually look at 4e books though, just glancing through things right now. Hopefully my books are here by tmr.
I haven't had a chance to actually look at 4e books though, just glancing through things right now. Hopefully my books are here by tmr.
Multiclassing got changed, once more. In D&D 2nd edition, you leveled up two or more classes simultaneously, in D&D 3rd edition, you took one level by level, and in 4th edition, you pick up feats to swap one power from your class with another power from the class you took the multiclass-feat for (don't worry, you get more feats in 4th edition than in 3rd).
Your amount of powers is finite in D&D, for every class. And yes, they're different. Even a moron can see that in 4th edition, a Fighter is meant to be at melee, and the wizard is supposed to stay behind, while rogues and rangers use their many movement-and-strike-abilities to go around.
No more people just standing around and trying to do full-attacks whenever possible (because that was really the only thing that was good for the mundane types, until the AC of the enemy was super-high, then only the very first attack counted, because the additonal ones wouldn't hit at all).
If you were incapable back then in D&D 3rd edition to play without minis and battle-grid if anybody had spring-attack, then you will remain incapable to do so. But I'm pretty sure that the absolute total majority had no problem with Spring-Attack.
Your amount of powers is finite in D&D, for every class. And yes, they're different. Even a moron can see that in 4th edition, a Fighter is meant to be at melee, and the wizard is supposed to stay behind, while rogues and rangers use their many movement-and-strike-abilities to go around.
No more people just standing around and trying to do full-attacks whenever possible (because that was really the only thing that was good for the mundane types, until the AC of the enemy was super-high, then only the very first attack counted, because the additonal ones wouldn't hit at all).
If you were incapable back then in D&D 3rd edition to play without minis and battle-grid if anybody had spring-attack, then you will remain incapable to do so. But I'm pretty sure that the absolute total majority had no problem with Spring-Attack.
QUOTE (spica2501 @ Jun 6 2008, 01:41 AM)
Some of my friends were able to get there hands on PDFs of the 4th edition D&D rulebooks. I was excited to get a chance to play it, if only because the product has not yet been officially released yet.
As the topic description states 4th ed. is awful. It can be summed up in a series of three points:
1) Everyone is a variant of the 3rd edition Warlock.
2) There is no fluff anymore.
3) It is WoW.
I blame Keith Baker, one of the chief designers and the creater of the terrible Eberon campaign setting. Everything he comes up with is stupid and 4th ed is no exception. My question is why WOTC put the designer of a campaign setting that has not been selling well in charge of creating their new rules set?
As the topic description states 4th ed. is awful. It can be summed up in a series of three points:
1) Everyone is a variant of the 3rd edition Warlock.
2) There is no fluff anymore.
3) It is WoW.
I blame Keith Baker, one of the chief designers and the creater of the terrible Eberon campaign setting. Everything he comes up with is stupid and 4th ed is no exception. My question is why WOTC put the designer of a campaign setting that has not been selling well in charge of creating their new rules set?
Thank god! If they tried to make D&D any more GURPS like I think I would never buy another WOTC product. I want quick character generation and endless magic missles... I also want the rules not to get in the way of the story, I doubt that happend but 99% of the stuff I've seen they finally moved out of 1980s RPGs.
QUOTE (tete @ Jun 6 2008, 04:39 PM)
I also want the rules not to get in the way of the story, I doubt that happend but 99% of the stuff I've seen they finally moved out of 1980s RPGs.
Good news. The rules do not get in the way of the story.
QUOTE (Nightwalker450 @ Jun 6 2008, 08:50 PM)
I'm actually a fan of the multi-classing.. If only because it allowed me to get a character that was more unique and had the abilities and combinations to make what I wanted. (It's also why I like shadowrun, which doesn't have classes.. or levels.)
I agree. Unfettered multiclassing is the closest you can get to not having levels or classes, which as an SR player naturally appeals to me when I have to play in a class/level based system. I was actually remarking to my D&D group this past Thursday that other than a couple of casters and one uber-rogue, I don't think I've ever played a single class character in 3+. (I didn't play that many in 2e either, as I tended towards Fighter/Thieves.)
My D&D group is phasing in 4e. We've played a couple of test sessions and we're looking at starting up the first campaign at the end of this month. I have reservations about the new system, but I have reservations about the old one and the one before that too. Maybe I'm just too jaded, but I really don't see a system coming in and making the game perfect, or wrecking it either. Most of what my group does-- the getting together, snacking, cracking jokes, ec.-- is all but impervious to systems.
I haven't seen the 4th edition stuff yet, and don't really have any plan on picking it up anytime soon, but I do have a couple of comments on some of what's been said:
Multi-classing: This is one of things I liked about 3.x edition. You can make a character with the abilities that you want. Not every mage has to be old with a long beard. If you want to play on, great, but you don't have to. I've never had a problem with separating the game mechanics and the story and don't see how playing a single class stereotype is somehow better.
Eberron: The only D&D setting I actually like.
Multi-classing: This is one of things I liked about 3.x edition. You can make a character with the abilities that you want. Not every mage has to be old with a long beard. If you want to play on, great, but you don't have to. I've never had a problem with separating the game mechanics and the story and don't see how playing a single class stereotype is somehow better.
Eberron: The only D&D setting I actually like.
Also, LOL at how this thread with its little negative tagline is much longer than the "positive" thread, http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=22362
QUOTE (spica2501 @ Jun 5 2008, 09:41 PM)
I blame Keith Baker, one of the chief designers and the creater of the terrible Eberon campaign setting. Everything he comes up with is stupid and 4th ed is no exception. My question is why WOTC put the designer of a campaign setting that has not been selling well in charge of creating their new rules set?
I don't see Keith's name in the credits of any of the fourth edition books; certainly not in a prominent place.
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Jun 7 2008, 04:09 PM)
Also, LOL at how this thread with its little negative tagline is much longer than the "positive" thread, http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=22362
To be fair, compare the ages of those threads.
Personally, when I need a my fix of a game using a 20-sided die, I would rather play Spycraft 2.0 (imagine d20 Modern done RIGHT) or True20 (by Green Ronnin).
Just my 2 nuyen ... uh ... copper pieces.
Just my 2 nuyen ... uh ... copper pieces.
Personally we never really felt a need to 'upgrade' our AD&D stuff beyond 2nd ed but I gave up on TSR when they did the Dark Sun and that issue of Dragon was little more than an advertisment for the game world.
QUOTE (Smed @ Jun 7 2008, 12:13 PM)
I
Eberron: The only D&D setting I actually like.
Eberron: The only D&D setting I actually like.
I like the Eberron setting too,got a bunch of the books but haven't gotten around to running a game yet.
QUOTE (Alex @ Jun 7 2008, 08:54 PM)
Personally, when I need a my fix of a game using a 20-sided die, I would rather play Spycraft 2.0 (imagine d20 Modern done RIGHT) or True20 (by Green Ronnin).
Just my 2 nuyen ... uh ... copper pieces.
Just my 2 nuyen ... uh ... copper pieces.
ELECTRUM PIECES BIYATCH!
So for you who already have the new PHB, did it come with some special dndinsider website with extra support? The main site talks about a character builder, character visualizer, and some other stuff but none of it is working yet.
I don't have the books yet, but I have to say I'm leaning towards probably not liking it just on the basis of what I've read on the main website dealing with my beloved Forgotten Realms. Floating islands and warforged running around is just not right. And don't even get me started on Tieflings and Warlocks. How many years did we Rp'ers spend trying to convince family that we weren't dealing with demons? Thanks a hell of a lot WoTC.
I don't have the books yet, but I have to say I'm leaning towards probably not liking it just on the basis of what I've read on the main website dealing with my beloved Forgotten Realms. Floating islands and warforged running around is just not right. And don't even get me started on Tieflings and Warlocks. How many years did we Rp'ers spend trying to convince family that we weren't dealing with demons? Thanks a hell of a lot WoTC.
Ehr, you're not really going to tell us that you have a problem with playing some (really ugly) half-demon bastard in a pen-and-paper game, do you? Because, there is one console game where people play a (not so ugly) half-demon bastard slicing other (really ugly) full demons. You know, that game called Devil May Cry...
If today's people don't rally against video-games with half-demon protagonists anymore, they won't do that for old D&D either.
As for the Forgotten Realms, just continue using your old source books.
If today's people don't rally against video-games with half-demon protagonists anymore, they won't do that for old D&D either.
As for the Forgotten Realms, just continue using your old source books.
QUOTE (apollo124 @ Jun 8 2008, 02:34 PM)
So for you who already have the new PHB, did it come with some special dndinsider website with extra support? The main site talks about a character builder, character visualizer, and some other stuff but none of it is working yet.
Nope! You have to pay extra for all that crap. I think it's around $15 US per month or so.
QUOTE (Aaron @ Jun 7 2008, 12:15 AM)
Good news. The rules do not get in the way of the story.
This is true. The rules in fact scarcely interact with the story.
While the rules say that you can use Diplomacy to influence the attitude of NPCs, there are literally no rules for that anywhere. The actual "rule" is:
QUOTE (4e)
A Diplomacy check is made against a DC set by the DM. The target’s general attitude toward you (friendly
or unfriendly, peaceful or hostile) and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you’re asking for) might apply to the DC. Diplomacy is usually used in a skill challenge that requires a number of successes, but the DM might call for a Diplomacy check in other situations.
or unfriendly, peaceful or hostile) and other conditional modifiers (such as what you might be seeking to accomplish or what you’re asking for) might apply to the DC. Diplomacy is usually used in a skill challenge that requires a number of successes, but the DM might call for a Diplomacy check in other situations.
That's it. That's the whole rule. There are no sample DCs in the DMG for convincing a "hostile" or "unfriendly" NPC to do something or anything. In fact, the only guidelines in the book for setting skill DCs for anything at all are based on the power of the character performing the action. So apparently as you get higher level your Diplomacy modifier raises, but the assumed DCs to accomplish the same tasks raise by the same amount, so really nothing whatever has changed.
The DM "might" let you make a Diplomacy check and he "might" choose to set a DC that is something you could achieve and he "might" allow your proposal or the situation to have any bearing on any of this. Basically whether you have a Diplomacy modifier or not, your attempts to convince NPCs to do or believe anything are essentially just an extended game of Magical Teaparty or Cops and Robbers. Non-combat interactions are so "rules light" that they may as well be diceless. You have numbers on your sheet for Diplomacy, but those numbers don't mean anything at all.
-Frank
I hate the way D&D 4e has become you want to do something out of combat *shug* ok then. No rules no skills my crfting chars are just useless and I've heard gnomes have gone. those two thing have lost the system to me. then the warforged in FR how why they'll need a bloody good reason why because just playing the city of shade card wont work.
Well in a lot of ways that's also a return to older editions. 1st ed didn't even have Non Weapon Proficiencies. If your character wanted to lead the peasants in an Army of Darkness style training montage, good luck. Non Weapon Proficiencies in 2nd ed were a half baked afterthought. 3rd edition had a much more developed skill system but most classes had so few skill points I think I could count on one hand the number of PC's I saw with more than a rank or two in any crafting skill. I agree the diplomacy/human relations aspect of 4E is lacking but then again D&D has at it's core always been a game about killing monsters and taking their stuff. Groups who developed highly involved political campaigns regardless of edition have done so despite the system, not because of it.
I'm curious to hear what you mean by 'crafting chars'? Did you seriously develop PC's that focused on blacksmithing, basket weaving or other tradeskills? If that's the direction you want the game to take I can't imagine it's too difficult to add a few new skills to create your vision. You're probably a fairly small minority though so I can see why WoTC didn't devote much space in the core books to it.
Gnomes are in the Monstrous Manual with rules for how to make them PC's. So not gone, just not a 'core' race. Warforged I agree with, but unless I end up with a player who desperately wants to play a steampunk robot they're easy enough to ignore. Right now the only PC writeup they have is in a web supplement (that incidentally is available for free).
D&D has never been about anything but combat, and I kinda like it that way. Does it suit every possible campaign? Not at all, but if I want to play some heavy political game chronicling the rise of the PC's from minor noblemen to some of the most influential peers in the kingdom with a little bit of combat to spice things up I'd run Burning Wheel. The system is designed with that in mind. On the flip side, if I wanted to run a combat heavy 'save the kingdom from invading X' with a strong dose of politics in the background I'd run D&D. It can handle the politics well enough to add flavor and the combat system is (imo) a million times better than BW.
I'm curious to hear what you mean by 'crafting chars'? Did you seriously develop PC's that focused on blacksmithing, basket weaving or other tradeskills? If that's the direction you want the game to take I can't imagine it's too difficult to add a few new skills to create your vision. You're probably a fairly small minority though so I can see why WoTC didn't devote much space in the core books to it.
Gnomes are in the Monstrous Manual with rules for how to make them PC's. So not gone, just not a 'core' race. Warforged I agree with, but unless I end up with a player who desperately wants to play a steampunk robot they're easy enough to ignore. Right now the only PC writeup they have is in a web supplement (that incidentally is available for free).
D&D has never been about anything but combat, and I kinda like it that way. Does it suit every possible campaign? Not at all, but if I want to play some heavy political game chronicling the rise of the PC's from minor noblemen to some of the most influential peers in the kingdom with a little bit of combat to spice things up I'd run Burning Wheel. The system is designed with that in mind. On the flip side, if I wanted to run a combat heavy 'save the kingdom from invading X' with a strong dose of politics in the background I'd run D&D. It can handle the politics well enough to add flavor and the combat system is (imo) a million times better than BW.
QUOTE (Fortune @ Jun 7 2008, 10:56 PM)
Nope! You have to pay extra for all that crap. I think it's around $15 US per month or so.
I agree this is the most disappointing aspect of the new edition. I had great hopes for D&D insider, the virtual tabletop, and stuff like that. My gaming group has had a few members scatter across the globe so it would give us a chance to get everyone together again. D&D insider will be running an open Beta until the end of July however so you will have a chance to 'try before you buy' and the PHB, comes packaged with a code that gives you a free 10 day subscription.
Two big problems with insider (as of yesterday when I last checked)
1) There is nothing up yet. Last Friday, biggest day to hit D&D since 3rd edition and D&D insider is nothing but a splash page. Colour me disappointed. If it doesn't get sorted right quick they'll be loosing my business.
2) 15 dollars/mo (or 120 a year) is a stupid price point.* This gets you access to Dungeon and Dragon magazines, their V-tabletop, character builder, character visualizer, and dungeon designer. The software I could see getting packaged for around 60 bucks for everything, I'd pay that. As for the web-zines, someone on the Wizard boards posted a breakdown of the cost to get the most popular print magazines delivered to your door every month (or once a week) for a year. A 120 dollar DDI subscription would get you (I think) 11 of the 12 most popular print magazines in the US. The average cost was something like 2 bucks an issue. So if the DDI gets us two magazines online I'd expect to pay max 4 bucks for them. Even if we tack on a few extra bucks a month for the cost of Wizards maintaining their servers for the V-Tabletop, it's not like they're running something on the scale of WoW. There is no reason their servers should cost so much. For the service they are providing I think that a one time payment of 60 bucks for the software and 6 bucks a month is reasonable. Unless the price point gets dealt with I'm afraid they won't be getting my business either.
*There are rumors that this 15 dollars a month will mean that you also get access to PDF's/online versions of all the books as they are released. That would probably convince me that it's worth it. I have a lot of 3.X books that I like a single class/race/monster whatever from and having access to a PDF version would save me needing to buy the whole book if I'm only using a dozen pages from it.
QUOTE (apollo124 @ Jun 8 2008, 12:34 AM)
. And don't even get me started on Tieflings and Warlocks. How many years did we Rp'ers spend trying to convince family that we weren't dealing with demons? Thanks a hell of a lot WoTC.
Your talking as if that attitude has changed ,well it hasn't there as still plenty of folks who still think D&D is the spawn of the devil. Having or not having Tieflings and warlocks aren't going to have any real affect on peoples misconception of RPGs. Besides this isn't the 80s no one pays any attention the Pat Pullings of world any more.
QUOTE (Fabe @ Jun 8 2008, 01:34 PM)
Besides this isn't the 80s no one pays any attention the Pat Pullings of world any more.
Yeah, nobody believes in the devil anymore. We never see the influence of such thinking in American politics.
QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Jun 8 2008, 01:38 PM)
Yeah, nobody believes in the devil anymore. We never see the influence of such thinking in American politics.
Well OK people still believe in the devil and like to blame every thing they don't like on him I'll admit that. But I still feel that anti gaming advocates like Patricta Pulling aren't given as much attention as they were in the 80s durning the hight of the anti D&D hysteria.
@ imperialus by crafting chars I mean my warforged aritifcer (im not against warforged they juts don't fit in FR) who in the time the rest of that party resting fixes their gear and works on magic items and builds his own weapons. He has at second level 4 ranks in all related crafting skill and still fits in to his role in the party with no fuss.
Extra rules could fix the problem but i also dislike the way DCs scale with level so your really playing the same game as at level 2 when your at level 30. These rules make the game seam very unrealsitc as in my current 5.3 game
we're often pitted again much much weaker or stronger foes. This lead the game to feel real as there is no sense in everything being the same challenge.
As I dont own any of the books and are going off what I've been told and read some thing may be doable. By limiting most rules to combat and giving no or few examples of the none-combat ones the game lack the third dimension as all interaction is up to the GM full stop.
Extra rules could fix the problem but i also dislike the way DCs scale with level so your really playing the same game as at level 2 when your at level 30. These rules make the game seam very unrealsitc as in my current 5.3 game
we're often pitted again much much weaker or stronger foes. This lead the game to feel real as there is no sense in everything being the same challenge.
As I dont own any of the books and are going off what I've been told and read some thing may be doable. By limiting most rules to combat and giving no or few examples of the none-combat ones the game lack the third dimension as all interaction is up to the GM full stop.
...after slugging through this thread (BTW, what is it's total CR, maybe I can make level 
) looks like I'm staying with 3.5. Never got into the MMORPG style of play and don't intend to either. I like it when wizards, sorcerers, and clerics have to manage their spells, that means the NPC oppos have do the same.
...and fighters, boring...? meh...it's what you put into them personality wise that makes them interesting.
) looks like I'm staying with 3.5. Never got into the MMORPG style of play and don't intend to either. I like it when wizards, sorcerers, and clerics have to manage their spells, that means the NPC oppos have do the same. ...and fighters, boring...? meh...it's what you put into them personality wise that makes them interesting.
(Leaning on wood cane) "Why, back in my day sonny, back in the '80's we only had the second edition, and we liked it! Golems was something the evil wizard had, demons was what we fought, and dang it, the castles stayed where they was all the time! "(spits into spittoon)
And as far as Devil May Cry goes, well obviously you should kill ugly demons. I know standards have changed. Hell, I love playing Diablo, and with all the inverted pentacles and demons in that game, you never heard much of anything about it from the Evangelist crowd.
And as far as Devil May Cry goes, well obviously you should kill ugly demons. I know standards have changed. Hell, I love playing Diablo, and with all the inverted pentacles and demons in that game, you never heard much of anything about it from the Evangelist crowd.
I got a chance to play too. And despite the radical restructuring of the system, it plays like the exact same game, only faster and more interesting. Fighters no longer have to choose between hitting and hitting, they have options. Wizards no longer shoot their whole wad within the first few rounds. It's a good thing.
There's only one important question when looking at an RPG, and that is: is it fun? Obviously the OP didn't think so. Does that make the game objectively bad? Of course not. But can people who want a more casual, fast paced experience out of D&D still have a good time playing it? Yep.
There's only one important question when looking at an RPG, and that is: is it fun? Obviously the OP didn't think so. Does that make the game objectively bad? Of course not. But can people who want a more casual, fast paced experience out of D&D still have a good time playing it? Yep.
QUOTE (bishop186 @ Jun 6 2008, 12:42 PM)
My group got our hands on the PDFs a week ago and we've rolled up characters and run a trial encounter. It wasn't bad. Different, sure, but not completely in a bad way. It's playable and fun while playing. To those complaining about fluff: come on. D&D has always been notorious for bad fluff. This isn't any different. The idea of powers in general is silly but it works well enough and the game really feels balanced quite well.
As for complaints, my biggest complaints are that wizards are much less fun to make. All wizards seem to be the same anymore. In fact, that's my complaint with all of the classes: they all seem too similar and it gives the feel of less variety. Character creation isn't very fun anymore either; I for one loved skill points because of the flexibility it gave the character (though I do like some of the changes like combining Hide and Move Silently into Stealth or whatever). My two favorite core classes are right out, as well: bard and monk.
On the whole, I enjoy the 4e experience.
As for complaints, my biggest complaints are that wizards are much less fun to make. All wizards seem to be the same anymore. In fact, that's my complaint with all of the classes: they all seem too similar and it gives the feel of less variety. Character creation isn't very fun anymore either; I for one loved skill points because of the flexibility it gave the character (though I do like some of the changes like combining Hide and Move Silently into Stealth or whatever). My two favorite core classes are right out, as well: bard and monk.
On the whole, I enjoy the 4e experience.
If you think that D&D always had bad fluff, then you never played any of the good second edition campaign settings (Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, and, my personal favorite, Planescape).
I tried playing 4th edition again at world wide gaming day on Saturday, and I have a few more points of complaint to add. The first is that the entire system seems very watered down. The second that every feature of every class is all about combat, even spells/abilities that would have been considered buffs or support spells in previous editions do damage. The third is the flier they were handing out advertizing the new edition of the forgotten realms. It basically states that they are planning to shove dragonborn and eladrin down the realm's throaght, they are killing of the established NPCs (it doesn't say who, but I doubt even fanboy favorite Drizzt or Elminster have survived), and that "Kingdoms have risen and fallen." This basically translates to the realms no longer being the realms and indicates that Ed Greenwood has been striped of all creative control. I find this so disapointing because I was hoping that even if the core fluff sucked at least we would still have the realms to play in if we choose to do so.
And to those who like Eberron, actually play a game in it before you say its good. If you still like it, get you hands on the 2nd ed source books of the settings I mentioned previously, read them, and then reconsider whether Eberron is actually as good as you thought it was, or if it is a hollow, souless setting that leaves you with the same aftertaste as an artificial sweetner.
A lot of the old fluff was pretty hit or miss though, and it was very scattered. The Dragonlance Chronicles is still arguably one of the worst adventure designs ever and even Darksun (my personal favorite) was pretty spotty, and could be very difficult to play a campaign of any real length. Some of it was just weird too. I mean really, what were they smoking when they came up with Spelljammer?
Just to address the FR comments. The last Podcast by the Wizards team talked quite a bit about how they are dealing with the Realms.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4arch/pod
First, they are advancing the timeline by 100 years or something. They're using the spellplauge to explain the changes in magic sorta like how the 2nd crash changed the matrix. Mystiria is dead, I can assume that Elminster is probably a lot less powerful, but this is also addressing the #1 complaint about FR. It scales back the NPC dominance of the setting. I mean lets face it, Elminster is the ultimate DMPC and a lot of groups hated that.
I can't remember how they talked about integrating Eldran but the Dragonborn at least I can give a coles notes version of, and it was actually Greenwoods idea so it doesn't seem like he's being removed from the picture. Also keep in mind I'm no FR guru, I played in an old grey box campaign but that was it. Hopefully my mangling of cannon and half remembered quotes don't confuse things too much.
Anyhow, it's never actually been explained what exactly is 'forgotten' about the Forgotten Realms. Greenwood has always had that in the back of his mind though (after all he named the world after it). It turns out there is another whole continent that has been until now unexplored. Now apparently there was a period of Realms history where there was a huge dragon empire running... well everything.
The same empire existed on the other continent and after the 'realms' (ferun?) overthrew the dragons contact between the two continents was cut off. The dragon empire remained strong on the second continent however and developed independently of Ferun. That's where Dragonborn come from.
QUOTE (mythical TSR staffers)
"DUDE! Wouldn't it be like so cool if there was a D&D game where you had like sailing ships and shit, but in space?"
"Yeah, and there could be some ships that were like shaped like fish and crazy shit like that."
"Hey, guys... have you ever looked at your hand? Like really looked at it? It's like awesome."
"Yeah, and there could be some ships that were like shaped like fish and crazy shit like that."
"Hey, guys... have you ever looked at your hand? Like really looked at it? It's like awesome."
Just to address the FR comments. The last Podcast by the Wizards team talked quite a bit about how they are dealing with the Realms.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4arch/pod
First, they are advancing the timeline by 100 years or something. They're using the spellplauge to explain the changes in magic sorta like how the 2nd crash changed the matrix. Mystiria is dead, I can assume that Elminster is probably a lot less powerful, but this is also addressing the #1 complaint about FR. It scales back the NPC dominance of the setting. I mean lets face it, Elminster is the ultimate DMPC and a lot of groups hated that.
I can't remember how they talked about integrating Eldran but the Dragonborn at least I can give a coles notes version of, and it was actually Greenwoods idea so it doesn't seem like he's being removed from the picture. Also keep in mind I'm no FR guru, I played in an old grey box campaign but that was it. Hopefully my mangling of cannon and half remembered quotes don't confuse things too much.
Anyhow, it's never actually been explained what exactly is 'forgotten' about the Forgotten Realms. Greenwood has always had that in the back of his mind though (after all he named the world after it). It turns out there is another whole continent that has been until now unexplored. Now apparently there was a period of Realms history where there was a huge dragon empire running... well everything.
The same empire existed on the other continent and after the 'realms' (ferun?) overthrew the dragons contact between the two continents was cut off. The dragon empire remained strong on the second continent however and developed independently of Ferun. That's where Dragonborn come from.
QUOTE (Larme @ Jun 8 2008, 08:45 PM)
Fighters no longer have to choose between hitting and hitting, they have options. Wizards no longer shoot their whole wad within the first few rounds. It's a good thing.
This is objectively false. Fighters choose between hitting and hitting. They have two different at-will abilities which are both "I hit a dude" one of them additionally kills a minion if they are adjacent to the monster you are attacking, one of them pushes the monster you are attacking backwards. But they are both hitting a dude. It's an option I suppose, but it's not a really meaningful option. Once all the minions have been cleaned out you're just going to use Tide of Iron over and over again until you run out of opponents.
A Wizard, or any character for that matter, runs out of Encounter and Daily powers in just a couple of round, and there is almost no reason to ever save them for later in a battle. Then you're down to using your basic powers over and over again. Yes, people are no longer using "the attack action" - they are using one of their super special powers. One of their two special powers. That don't change until 30th level. Literally from 1st to 29th level you will fall back on the same general purpose power over and over again in every single fight. Saying "Tide of Iron! Tide of Iron! Tide of Iron!" gets just as boring as saying "Full Attack! Full Attack! Full Attack!" There's a certain novelty to it for a while because it's a different phrase, but after 10 or 20 levels of doing the same thing every single combat all the novelty is long departed.
When Wizards run out of their super spells they no longer are forced to rely on quarterstaves and crossbows. Now they just cast Ray of Frost every single round for ever. It's just like someone gave every Wizard a Reserve Feat at first level. Except that unlike a Wizard from previous editions, they end up forced to their reserve power every fight. Where a high level Wizard used to eventually get enough Daily powers to get him through every round of every combat, the 4e Wizard will always run dry before the enemy is quite half dead. At higher levels he has some more use-limited super spells, but enemies have even more hit points than the extra rounds of casting Meteor Swarm and Prismatic Spray will do. Indeed, the number of rounds he spends per combat casting Magic Missile over and over again increases as levels increase.
-Frank
A level 1 Fighter has far more things to chose from in 4th edition than in prior. Two at-will powers, one encounter power, one daily power, and possibly some racial power add up to your battle prowess. Should you be that desperate for having a absolute normal attack, you can still use basic-attack at will too. And of course, it's not like you're fighting the good fight alone. That's what you get your wizard buddy for, the cleric dude (or the warlord guy), the rogue, the ranger, warlock, or the paladin helping you beat u, who are all using their own encounter powers, at will powers, daily powers, racial powers... All that at level 1.
At higher levels, everybody has more encounter powers, more daily powers, and magic items also grant more powers. And as already said, a group of 5 level 30 guys can beat up a level 30 monster with 1450 hit point in 7 rounds. If you're reducing yourself to only at-will powers for an encounter, you deserve to let the battle drag on. Archwizards even get the ability to turn one of their daily powers into an encounter power. Other epic destinies allow you to regain all your spent daily powers (or encounter powers, if you're a little bit unlucky). 4th edition works at higher level, far better than it does in 3rd edition.
At higher levels, everybody has more encounter powers, more daily powers, and magic items also grant more powers. And as already said, a group of 5 level 30 guys can beat up a level 30 monster with 1450 hit point in 7 rounds. If you're reducing yourself to only at-will powers for an encounter, you deserve to let the battle drag on. Archwizards even get the ability to turn one of their daily powers into an encounter power. Other epic destinies allow you to regain all your spent daily powers (or encounter powers, if you're a little bit unlucky). 4th edition works at higher level, far better than it does in 3rd edition.
I am intrigued by the "rituals". I'll have to check them out, they might be a better way of doing something that I was using in my 3E campaign already.
QUOTE (spica2501 @ Jun 8 2008, 11:15 PM)
If you think that D&D always had bad fluff, then you never played any of the good second edition campaign settings (Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, and, my personal favorite, Planescape).
And to those who like Eberron, actually play a game in it before you say its good. If you still like it, get you hands on the 2nd ed source books of the settings I mentioned previously, read them, and then reconsider whether Eberron is actually as good as you thought it was, or if it is a hollow, souless setting that leaves you with the same aftertaste as an artificial sweetner.
And to those who like Eberron, actually play a game in it before you say its good. If you still like it, get you hands on the 2nd ed source books of the settings I mentioned previously, read them, and then reconsider whether Eberron is actually as good as you thought it was, or if it is a hollow, souless setting that leaves you with the same aftertaste as an artificial sweetner.
Probably a personal taste thing, as the campaigns you mention are ones I thought were complete crap. Of those I'd play FR cause its what most of our GMs were running, but mostly with ported Greyhawk adventures anyway. For the most part I thought most of the fluff from those worlds was shite though.
QUOTE (Fuchs @ Jun 9 2008, 06:08 AM)
I am intrigued by the "rituals". I'll have to check them out, they might be a better way of doing something that I was using in my 3E campaign already.
They are one-shot magic items that you purchase that require a skill check to activate.
Would you spend 50 gp to send forth an animal messenger? If you roll high enough on your Nature check, the animal will continue messenging for more than six hours.
QUOTE (Particle_Beam)
A level 1 Fighter has far more things to chose from in 4th edition than in prior. Two at-will powers, one encounter power, one daily power, and possibly some racial power add up to your battle prowess.
A first level 3e Fighter can strike, disarm, grapple or trip. Also he has feats that give him additional real abilities like Cleave rather than just having feats that give static bonuses like Weapon Focus.
While I will admit that the races of 4e have slightly more special abilities, the fact is that a 3e Fighter inherently has actually more options than a 4e Fighter does. Recall that in 4e Disarms and Sunders aren't even possible without using up one of your Encounter powers, and Disarming requires a near-Epic power to attempt.
-Frank
QUOTE (FrankTrollman @ Jun 9 2008, 02:54 PM)
They are one-shot magic items that you purchase that require a skill check to activate.
Would you spend 50 gp to send forth an animal messenger? If you roll high enough on your Nature check, the animal will continue messenging for more than six hours.
Would you spend 50 gp to send forth an animal messenger? If you roll high enough on your Nature check, the animal will continue messenging for more than six hours.
That's not a question I have to pose myself, or my players, since we do not play with gold coins, but use an abstract wealth system. And such rituals seem like a good way to add more options to our swordsman (who already meditated regularily), our priest (who already did "rituals" to commune with her deity, since she has no actual cleric levels) and even our barbarian might use such rituals to commune with acnestro spirits, or deities.
Disarm, Grapple and Trip only got used when you had the feat for it, as so, you got rid of the bloody counter-attacks-of-opportunity and had a much better chance to succeed thanks to your +4 bonus. And those options still suck against enemies who are massively larger than you, have Improved Grab (nearly every grappling monster did, and it's leagues better than your measly Improved Grapple-Feat), and tripping got impossible against more advanced enemies who had massive strenght, several legs, got some balancing boni like the dwarf or could fly. You didn't disarm the goblin dirt warrior at level 1. You simply killed him. One blow with your weapon, combined with your damage bonus from your strenght made it always better to simply hit the enemy with a regular attack than trying something flashy like disarming. Without the Improved Disarm Feat, you got an Attack of Opportunity, risked to get disarmed yourself, and all that you accomplished was that the weapon was at the ground of the enemy. Then, he picked up the weapon, got an AoO from you, and he attacked you with his own attack action. So, you wasted a turn doing nothing. Brilliant.
Or wait, Trip. You get an AoO, you risk being tripped yourself if you fail, and then the enemy lies on the ground. Then, the enemy tries to get up, get's an AoO from you, and then he attacks with his own attack action. Fantastic, you wasted your action doing nothing again.
Grab. Forget it. Without Improved Unarmed Combat and Improved Grapple, the moment you an AoO hits you, your grapple attempt has been stopped, and you wasted your turn for nothing, except taking damage. And if you do have those feats, then you do your meager unarmed damage... If you aren't a monk, stop doing it, right now, because you're only embarassing yourself, in front of everybody else.
That's utterly brilliant. A 1st level 3rd edition Fighter gets the ability to delay the combat and waste his turn. Horray. That's a big improvement over the 1st level 2nd edition Fighter, who hit people with his one attack per round...
Nope, no, it wasn't.
The googles do nothing. And the Internet breaks so many times, dammit.
Or wait, Trip. You get an AoO, you risk being tripped yourself if you fail, and then the enemy lies on the ground. Then, the enemy tries to get up, get's an AoO from you, and then he attacks with his own attack action. Fantastic, you wasted your action doing nothing again.
Grab. Forget it. Without Improved Unarmed Combat and Improved Grapple, the moment you an AoO hits you, your grapple attempt has been stopped, and you wasted your turn for nothing, except taking damage. And if you do have those feats, then you do your meager unarmed damage... If you aren't a monk, stop doing it, right now, because you're only embarassing yourself, in front of everybody else.
That's utterly brilliant. A 1st level 3rd edition Fighter gets the ability to delay the combat and waste his turn. Horray. That's a big improvement over the 1st level 2nd edition Fighter, who hit people with his one attack per round...
Nope, no, it wasn't.
The googles do nothing. And the Internet breaks so many times, dammit.
I only wish they'd strip Ed Greenwood of all his creative power! That guy... 
He never understood balanced classes! All his stuff was "Wizards rock, everything else sucks rocks! Magic must be everywhere and in everything!" Seriously, killing off all his freaking "Chosen" and immortal NPC's of Doom, getting rid of all that deus ex machina is a good thing. A complete revamp of the Forgotten Realms can only improve it. May Ed Greenwood forever have writer's block!
As for fourth edition, well, I reserve judgement until I actually play it, but I did buy the books and it is quite a change. I imagine such a drastic change can be quite a shock, especially to older gamers. My only suggestion (for what it's worth after alienating all Forgotten Realms fans) is to imagine it not as new D&D, but a new game entirely. Set aside your ideas of how D&D is "supposed to be" and try the game. If it still sucks for you, well, then you were right all along. If it changes your perception and because of that you can enjoy it, then yay!
He never understood balanced classes! All his stuff was "Wizards rock, everything else sucks rocks! Magic must be everywhere and in everything!" Seriously, killing off all his freaking "Chosen" and immortal NPC's of Doom, getting rid of all that deus ex machina is a good thing. A complete revamp of the Forgotten Realms can only improve it. May Ed Greenwood forever have writer's block!As for fourth edition, well, I reserve judgement until I actually play it, but I did buy the books and it is quite a change. I imagine such a drastic change can be quite a shock, especially to older gamers. My only suggestion (for what it's worth after alienating all Forgotten Realms fans) is to imagine it not as new D&D, but a new game entirely. Set aside your ideas of how D&D is "supposed to be" and try the game. If it still sucks for you, well, then you were right all along. If it changes your perception and because of that you can enjoy it, then yay!
Shrug. To each their own. I quite like most of Ed Greenwood's stuff. I have even played in a couple of games that he GMed way back about 12 or 13 years ago, and had a great time.
He used to complain (probably still does) about how he'd often submit something for publication to TSR, and then could hardly recognize the final release of that work.
He used to complain (probably still does) about how he'd often submit something for publication to TSR, and then could hardly recognize the final release of that work.
Ed Greenwood has all ways been a story teller the FR setting works but not if people over do the NPCs like they're going to much with your average low level PCs any way.
My question is, does the Spelunker build still work?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.